My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1988.02.01 CC Minutes
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1988 CC Minutes
>
1988.02.01 CC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2017 1:45:19 PM
Creation date
9/23/2015 9:18:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
2/1/1988
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council meeting of 2/1/88 <br />5.2 TEXAN BAR (OTHER BUSINESS LICENSES <br />Pending action on the above referenced liquor licenses, Will Harris <br />Investments, Inc., have made application to the City of Hugo for cigarette <br />and video game licenses. We would recommend that any action on the <br />approval of these licenses be consistent with Council direction on the <br />issuance of the on sale and off sale liquor licenses for the Texan Bar. <br />Atkinson made motion, Vail seconded, to approve the cigarette and video <br />game licenses for Will Harris Investments, Inc., DEA The Texan Bar, and <br />subject to proper insurance and bonds for the liquor licenses and payment <br />of delinquent taxes. <br />All aye. Motion Carried. <br />6.1 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT HEARING (HOMESTEAD DRIVE) <br />Pursuant to Council direction, a public hearing has been scheduled for <br />7:00 PM, on February 1, 1988, to pass upon the proposed assessment for the <br />installation of bituminous surfacing and related work on 125th Street from <br />County Road 10 north to Homestead Drive, and Homestead Drive from 125th <br />Street north to 130th Street, and 130th Street from Homestead Drive east <br />to its termination. The area to be assessed is the area abutting on the <br />improvement. Total amount of the proposed assessment is $70,656.00. A <br />copy of the hearing notice has been sent to all affected property owners <br />as per Minnesota Statute. All benefiting property owners have been <br />notified and we have made them aware that written and oral objections wil <br />be considered at the public hearing, and no appeal may be taken as to the <br />amount of any assessment unless a signed written objection is filed with <br />the city clerk, either prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding <br />office at the hearing. Appeals to the district court may be made by <br />serving notice upon the mayor or clerk of the city within 30 days after <br />adoption of the assessment and filing of such notice with the district <br />court within ten (10) after service upon the mayor or clerk. The city's <br />participation in this project is in the amount of $4,710.00. For those <br />who do not elect to pay the assessments in their entirety within 30 days <br />of adoption of this assessment roll, said assessments will be extended <br />over a period of 10 years at the interest rate of 9 1/2% per annum. The <br />total project cost, including construction, administration, legal, <br />financing, and engineering for the making of this improvement is <br />$75,366.00. The assessment rolls were prepared as per the request of <br />petitioners who indicated their desires that all the assessments be spread <br />on a per -lot basis. City staff was present Monday evening to present this <br />recommendation and answer any questions the public or Council may have <br />regarding this project. <br />Mayor Atkinson called the public hearing to order at which time the city <br />administrator, ken Huber, detailed the assessment process followed to date <br />and the procedure should any one of the benefiting property owners decide <br />to appeal the assessment. Mayor Atkinson then opened the meeting for <br />comments from the audience. Grover Storm, 8047 132nd Street, stated that <br />he had received notice of the assessment hearing, and that he does not owr <br />any property adjacent to the improvement. Mr. Storm had sold ten acres tc: <br />a Mr. Osterkamp, and he wondered whether he had been notified of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.